https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44140
Bug ID: 44140 Summary: Use less misleading language Product: WineHQ Bugzilla Version: unspecified Hardware: x86 OS: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: bugzilla-unknown Assignee: wine-bugs@winehq.org Reporter: z.figura12@gmail.com CC: austinenglish@gmail.com Distribution: ---
There are several places in our bugzilla that use misleading language. Time and time again I have seen users complain about a label, or attempt to modify it, to be patiently reminded that the label doesn't actually mean what it appears to mean.
Thus:
* The status NEW for confirmed bugs. Almost useless in its intended meaning since bugs are almost never assigned, and causes complaints when bugs several years old are marked NEW. CONFIRMED, or possibly OPEN, would be better.
* The version field is supposed to be the first reported version, but this is not obvious to users, who often change it to a more recent version, whereupon a bugzilla admin changes it back and informs them of this. This happens far, far too often. IMO, this field should be renamed to something more specific like "first reported version" or "earliest known version". I think we could also benefit from a second field "latest known version", which would then obviate the repeated "still present in..." comments that bugs often get.
* Severity is often misunderstood by users as being severity with respect to the applicaton (i.e. a bug causing a program to crash is a "blocker", etc.) I'm not sure that I can think of a good thing to rename this to, though. If something comes to mind, it might be worthwhile to have one field represent the severity as relating to Wine, and one as relating to the application.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44140
--- Comment #1 from Rosanne DiMesio dimesio@earthlink.net --- Hmm...
* I agree "Confirmed" or "Open" would be more accurate, but neither will stop users from complaining about bugs being open for years.
* There was a very long discussion about renaming the Version field on wine-devel several years ago. https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2014-February/102761.html
* The field is actually labeled Importance, not Severity, and IMO that's part of the problem; everyone thinks their bug is important. The second problem with that field, and what I think is the bigger problem, is bug 39009: if a user clicks on the Importance link to try to find out the meanings of the various choices, they end up in the wrong section on fields.html, and don't see the severity definitions at all, so even users who are trying to follow our directions, can't.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44140
--- Comment #2 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com --- Fwiw, this discussion is probably better suited to wine-devel..
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44140
Zebediah Figura z.figura12@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Zebediah Figura z.figura12@gmail.com --- (In reply to Austin English from comment #2)
Fwiw, this discussion is probably better suited to wine-devel..
Yes, you are right. I should not have opened a bug about my personal opinions :-/
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44140
Ken Sharp imwellcushtymelike@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED
--- Comment #4 from Ken Sharp imwellcushtymelike@gmail.com --- Closing